Smith v. Workforce Appeals Board, Department of Workforce Services
2011 UT App 68
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Smith was terminated from Alpine School District for dishonesty on the job and for committing a criminal act after driving District vehicles on a suspended license without reporting.
- He had a DUI arrest in October 2007, resulting in license suspension effective November 11, 2007, and later received Paperwork replacing his permanent license.
- Smith’s driving privileges were reinstated on February 12, 2008 following a February 4, 2008 no-contest plea to a drug-related reckless driving charge.
- A 2009 legislative audit disclosed the no-contest plea; the District then asked Smith if he had driven on a suspended license, and he admitted doing so.
- Smith argued he learned of the suspension only when reinstated and thus had no knowledge when driving; the Board relied in part on a DUI form and other evidence to conclude knowledge.
- The Board upheld the ALJ’s reversal of the Department’s unemployment-denial decision, despite noting concerns about post-hearing evidence and a uniform DUI form.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board unlawfully rely on post-hearing DUI form evidence? | Smith argues unlawful procedure and misapplication of rules. | Board asserts discretion to consider related evidence and that any error is harmless. | Assumed error without deciding; no substantial prejudice shown. |
| Was there substantial evidence showing Smith knew his license was suspended when driving? | Smith contends record lacks evidence of knowledge. | Record supports knowledge through license suspension, avoidance of reporting, and related communications. | Substantial evidence supports knowledge; Smith not prejudiced. |
| Did the Board's findings have substantial evidentiary support apart from post-hearing materials? | Emails and HR testimony are hearsay or insufficient to prove knowledge. | Even if hearsay, the whole record supports knowledge; credibility determinations favor Board. | Yes; the Board’s findings are supported by the record evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- EAGALA, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 157 P.3d 334 (Utah App. 2007) (knowledge and substantial evidence standards in unemployment appeals)
- Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 29 P.3d 7 (Utah App. 2001) (moderate deference to agency decision within reason and rationality)
- Spencer v. Industrial Comm'n, 20 P.2d 618 (Utah 1933) (advisement of parties to meet evidence; due process context)
- Prosper, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 168 P.3d 344 (Utah App. 2007) (finding of fact must be supported by a residuum of competent evidence)
- Albertsons, Inc. v. Department of Emp't Sec, 854 P.2d 570 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (clear statements on evidence and credibility in unemployment contexts)
- Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review, 776 P.2d 63 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (element of fairness; right to rebut adverse evidence)